TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted by the company like petitioner and similarly other situated companies who are in the business of crude soya oil, cotton seed oil and doing refinery business and due to bogus Forms / non-verified C-Form, the State of Madhya Pradesh suffered a loss of more than ₹ 200 crores. The fact that number of C-Forms were found fake as the same were not issued by the concerned department and rest of the C-Forms were not verified on the basis of verification report, we are of the view that no case to interfere with the order of reassessment and penalty, as prayed is made out - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.5857/2015, W.P.No.5859/2015, W.P.No.5860/2015 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2015 - Shri P.K. Jaiswal and Shri Jarat Kumar Jain, JJ. Shri P.M. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. Bhargava, Dy. A.G. for respondents State ORDER Petitioner M/s. Indian Soya Industries Ltd., is a limited company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of refining of the oil from crude oil and has set up industrial units for the said purpose at Plot Nos.1 and 2, Sector B, Industrial Estate, Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,982 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-form amount 3 06-07-2015 MH07/ 9967002 Nageshwar Trading Co. Indian Soya Industries 1,11,30,178 - - CTO Malegaon Nasik C-form issued in office but details of C-form amount not available 4 06-07-2015 MH07/ 1237822 Nilesh Traders Indian Soya Industries 34,53,59,949 6,15,715 34,47,44,234 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-form amount 5 06-07-2015 MH07/ 9967001 Deepak Traders Indian Soya Industries 6,34,74,464 - - CTO Malegaon Nasik C-form issued in office but details of C-form amount not available 6 06-07-2015 MH07/ 345014 Deepak Traders Indian Soya Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07-2015 MH07/ 0278262 Raj Sales Corporation, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 27,80,59,297 2,78,262 27,77,81,035 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-form amount 6 06-07-2015 MH07/ 0278247 Gagan Traders, Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 28,33,71,728 4,31,654 28,29,40,074 CTO Malegaon Nasik Difference in C-Form amount 7 06-07-2015 R/C/07/ 1334091 H. K.Traders, Bharatpur Indian Soya Industries 6,75,809 - - CTO Bhartpur Rajasthan Not issued by office 8 06-07-2015 UK/VAT/ C/ 2007/ 235053 Anand Enterprises, Roorkee Indian Soya Industries 7,32,874 - - Asstt. Commissioner, Roorkee Details not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Nasik Not issued by office 6 06-07-2015 MH07/ 1272168 Aditya Traders Maharashtra Indian Soya Industries 48,85,01,643 5,91,223 - CTO Malegaon Nasik C-form issued in office but details of C-form amount not available 7 06-07-2015 MH017/ 1272209 Aditya Traders Mah Indian Soya Industries 29,79,05,694 - - CTO Malegaon Nasik Not issued by officet 5. The respondents on the basis of information received from the CTO, Malegaon, Nasik (Maharashtra), CTO, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Assistant Commissioner, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) and Assistant Commissioner, Agra (U.P.) came to know that the C-Forms submitted by the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings were not verified, number of C-Forms were not issued by the department, huge difference of amount as per column number 10 of the chart reproduced herein above and have re-opened the case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also levied penalty. 8. As per reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner was supplied with the verification certificate received from the office of Commercial Tax, State of Maharashtra, State of Rajasthan, State of U. P. and State of Uttarakhand but no explanation was submitted in respect of C-Form submitted by the petitioner, which was later on found to be invalid as per communication received from the State of Maharashtra and other States. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to para 13 and other relevant paragraphs of the order passed in the case of M/ s. Sarvottam Vegetables Oil Refinery Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of M.P. Ors . and submitted that mismatch of figure is not bogus declaration and no opportunity was granted to supply adverse material. He further submitted that the transactions effected by the petitioner are genuine and the petitioner cannot be made liable for the usage of any false document by the purchasing dealer. The C-Forms obtained from the original purchaser were obtained in bonafide manner, which they belief that the same are genuine. The petitioner cannot be made liable for the false or forged documents, if any. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh VAT Tax @ 5% is payable and if there is interstate sale against C-Form then CST @ of 2% is only payable. In case of genuine transaction there is saving of 3%. In subsequent assessment years, ie., from 2006 07, 2007 08 and 2008 09, the petitioner submitted invalid C-Forms for interstate sales of and, therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie, the petitioner had complied with the requirement of the statute and Rules for the purpose of claiming deduction. As per verification report / letter issued by the concerned department the following C-Forms were not found valid. 11. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove the bonafides on his part that he took all necessary steps to prove the validity of the C-Forms received from the purchaser. The connivance of the petitioner is clear from the act that no specific document has been annexed or has been submitted during the reassessment proceeding stating that he has inquired from the purchaser about the validity of the C-Form. It is also pointed out by the learned Dy. Advocate General that in general, the department has found that from 2007-08 to 2011-12, most of the cases in relation to soya oil / crude oil, C-Forms have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the producing dealers. Later on, it was formed by the department that no such C-Forms were issued by the Delhi Commercial Tax Department and, therefore, demand of tax was made from the petitioner. Thus, the said principle will not be applicable in the present case. 15. In the present case, the petitioner registered selling dealer submitted (C) Forms of the purchasing dealers to the prescribed authority and on the basis of the aforesaid C Forms concession on tax was granted to the petitioner. Later on, on verification from the office of the Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi, it was found that the C Forms in question have not been issued to the dealer, ie., purchasing dealer. The Department found that the C Form submitted by the purchasing dealers is bogus and fictitious because no such C - Form was issued by the Department of Commercial Tax, Delhi and directed the petitioner - selling purchaser to pay the amount. The petitioner inspite of number of opportunities granted by the Department failed to examine any one to prove that C Forms, which he has submitted along with the return was not bogus or fictitious. Thus, we are of the view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of about ₹ 374 crores whereas, no such C-Forms were ever issued. This, it cannot be said that there is no evidence or material on record to show the involvement of the selling dealer in the procurement of fake C-Forms. The respondents partly accepted the contention of the petitioner and, therefore, ordered for recovery of difference of tax of which concession was granted to the petitioner. No proceeding has been initiated by the respondents / Department for leavy of penalty against the petitioner. 17. Once it is found that, the C Forms in question were not issued by the Department, the petitioner is liable to pay the difference of tax/benefit granted to him. It is not a case that defective 'C' Forms were submitted by the purchasing dealers and thus, petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of concessional rate of tax. Nor it is a case of submission of defective C Forms or non-submission of C Forms. The authority also granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce the valid C Forms of purchasing dealer nor he filed any document to prove that at the relevant point of time 'C' Forms in respect of the transaction in question has been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
